Why are blowbacks "low end"?

[cyrus-the-virus]

I never bothered to read the thread cus I'm pressed for time :P

Blow backs are "low end" because most manufactures make them out of ****ty materials.

Also do to the nature of the way the gun work's I've never had real good consistancy with blow back's.

As PBN would put it "BECUASE THEY JUST ARE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE MEDIA TELL'S US!!!"

[VFX_Fenix]

While this may be true, one thing is certain-there is a consistent, fixed amount of air used to propel the paintball in an autococker. Variances in each shot from the valve spring are nowhere as inconsistent as a blowback system.

What you say?

AC's still use a bolt spring to drive their hammer forward to open an exhaust valve to propel a paintball. This is by no means a "fixed" volume based on your previous claims, and certainly isn't a fixed volume considering that the valve is open to the rest of the air system and is only controlled by the time required for the valve to be slammed shut again by air pressure.

The ammount of air used in a firing cycle of an Automag also is in part dependent on the spring. The only thing driving the bolt forward in an AM is the pressure in the dump chamber behind it. It stands to reason that a stiff enough spring would render the action useless, similarly a standard spring with the valve turned down most of the way would also render this result. So it must follow then that variances in spring response also must alter the ammount of air that is allowed to leave the dump chamber before the bolt seals the system and the chamber is pressurized again. Conversly if there weren't a spring the bolt would remain forward and (assuming the On/Off were still enguaged by the trigger) would remain that way until the trigger was released causing the gun to vent.

Springs are used in both guns and I don't know too many people that would argue that both a Cocker and a Mag are pretty consistant guns.

The fault of the "low-end" blow back then doesn't reasonably lie on the fact that it uses springs.

The only things I can personally point to for an argument for why blow backs are low-end are:
1) Build quality - lots of hits and misses, right?
2) Public opinion - let's face it, BB semi guns haven't been exactly been at the top of the pile since the Automag and Cocker came around.

Build quality is somethign that can be overcome. However Public Opinion is something else entirely.

[skife]

Or more recently the Sentinals.

agreed, sentinal is the best feeling blowback i've ever shot.

[zenderfall]

I think you mean Glen Palmer. Bud Orr just kind of copied Palmer's design.

No, I meant Bud Orr. Taken from "The Complete Guide to Paintball"

Bud: The game loved is hard to find. Whenever you can sit back and just hose paint at somebody, it takes away from the sport.

So at that point, I didn't want to be the semi guy. But Tom (Kay) had brought out the automatic and, from a business perspective, I was forced into it.

I had a bunch of ideas. I ran across a gentleman named Jamell out of Sacramento. We put our ideas together and came up with the Autococker.

Jamell got out of paintball and I continued on with the Autococker. We're talking 1990, because I sponsored the Ironmen team that year. It was one of the teams I ever sponsored, and they used the Autococker.

So yeah, there it is, in an interview with Adam Cohen, on page 104.

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Guide-Paintball-Third/dp/1578261732/sr=8-1/qid=1166073042/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-8446460-2707626?ie=UTF8&s=books

Glen Palmer's name is nowhere on there. The interview does go on to talk about how the Autococker works, where he came up with the ideas, and a particular shop I used to visit (Unique Sporting Goods)

but unless you can find in print something that says differently.....

[zenderfall]

The fault of the "low-end" blow back then doesn't reasonably lie on the fact that it uses springs.

No it doesn't. I never said it did-I said it was inconsistent because the air is split - some propelling the paintball and the other part recocking the hammer.

[zenderfall]

You have no way of guessing whats causeing anything and no basis to make the claims you have.

"causeing?"

Actually I do. And I'm not guessing either.

[RRfireblade]

"causeing?"

Actually I do. And I'm not guessing either.

Cool.

I'd love to see the scratch built blow back you constructed to exacting tolerances and did all this lab testing on ?

I'll try and get some pics of the couple I did a few years ago if I can get over the the shop this weekend.

[hs2000]

zenderfall your theory is lame!

Airflow is predictable, there is absolutely nothing that would cause more air to randomly come out of one port of a blowback valve then the other. It's not like, "well maybe I'll try something different".

Plus we've already proven you wrong by giving you examples of consistent blowbacks.

[warbeak2099]

No, I meant Bud Orr. Taken from "The Complete Guide to Paintball"

Bud: The game loved is hard to find. Whenever you can sit back and just hose paint at somebody, it takes away from the sport.

So at that point, I didn't want to be the semi guy. But Tom (Kay) had brought out the automatic and, from a business perspective, I was forced into it.

I had a bunch of ideas. I ran across a gentleman named Jamell out of Sacramento. We put our ideas together and came up with the Autococker.

Jamell got out of paintball and I continued on with the Autococker. We're talking 1990, because I sponsored the Ironmen team that year. It was one of the teams I ever sponsored, and they used the Autococker.

So yeah, there it is, in an interview with Adam Cohen, on page 104.

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Guide-Paintball-Third/dp/1578261732/sr=8-1/qid=1166073042/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-8446460-2707626?ie=UTF8&s=books

Glen Palmer's name is nowhere on there. The interview does go on to talk about how the Autococker works, where he came up with the ideas, and a particular shop I used to visit (Unique Sporting Goods)

but unless you can find in print something that says differently.....

That passage was taken from an interview with Orr. Everyone knows however that Orr did not invent the idea for the autococker on his own. Glenn Palmer originated the idea and Budd copied it. Of course even after all these years though, Budd has never admitted it. It's very obvious though. Glenn never made a stink about it because unlike the Gardner Bros, Glenn Palmer cares more about the sport than competition to PPS. So do not go by some subjective interview with Budd himself. Of course it will say nothing of the fact that Budd stole a prototype of the Palmers Hurricane and copied the design from that. Of course I'm talking about Camille.

[Pneumagger]

No it doesn't. I never said it did-I said it was inconsistent because the air is split - some propelling the paintball and the other part recocking the hammer.

So your saying pressure gradients don't distibute evenly or predictably?


/Can I get a copy of the thermodynamics book you study?
// I'll bet 5 intarnet tubes it's by Dr. Suess

[spike_ball999]

The inconsistencies come into play when you ask, how MUCH air is used to propel the ball, and how much is used to direct the hammer-the answer? It varies with every shot. The spring is not perfect, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, all changes and therefore even if you have regulators, N2 tanks, double, or even triple regulators on a blowback gun each pull of the trigger will divert a different amount of air onto the paintball and the hammer. each slight difference in output air will translate into a ball veering slightly left, right, up, or down, and, compounded with barrel and ball physics, makes the inconsistency worse. No matter how much you try to control the barrel, paintballs, venturi bolts, and even regulators, that simple valve that directs air two ways will be the bane of the blowback gun.

The thing is, temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure will not drastically change in a short period of time (one game). All those variables are accounted for when the player originally tunes their gun at the chrono.

Also, the valve design of a blowback should only cause very little variation in amount of air to the hammer and bolt.
So let me see, could I change the valve design of a blow back marker to not allow any flow to the hammer and only the bolt while using a LPR routed to the front of the hammer to start the blow back action? In theory, this should make the blowback more consistant and 'high end' by allowing a more controlable amount of air to the bolt and hammer.

[Lohman446]

The inconsistencies come into play when you ask, how MUCH air is used to propel the ball, and how much is used to direct the hammer-the answer? It varies with every shot. The spring is not perfect, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, all changes and therefore even if you have regulators, N2 tanks, double, or even triple regulators on a blowback gun each pull of the trigger will divert a different amount of air onto the paintball and the hammer. each slight difference in output air will translate into a ball veering slightly left, right, up, or down, and, compounded with barrel and ball physics, makes the inconsistency worse. No matter how much you try to control the barrel, paintballs, venturi bolts, and even regulators, that simple valve that directs air two ways will be the bane of the blowback gun.

Wow, that almost sounded good, and then fell apart on consideration. IF these changes are enough to cause any noticeable change (which I doubt you are going to find unless you are using CO2) they are going to cause a change on all markers. That being said, there is no way there is that major of a change. I mean, doesn't the "three way" on an autococker divert air to different places? Wouldn't these changes change how the air hit a ball in like an automag, high or low on the bolt? As others have stated, those changes are going to be so miniscule (with the exception of temperature and CO2) that they are, in a normal day, going to cause nearly no difference in how the ball is fired.

As to your "real world" test. It doesn't prove your theory at all. It may prove one marker is more accurate than another, but it surely does not even consider the why. That is one of the most flawed "scientific tests" to illustrate an idea I have come across in a long long time. It wouldn't even disprove the idea that magic gnomes are loading the autococker to make it more accurate (not saying it is).

Sorry, I think RRfireblade is far more accurate and knowledgeable on this one.

[Pneumagger]

Zenderfall, don't worry man. Being the lose isn't so bad, you can always hang out with DM.

[Triangle]

Zenderfall, don't worry man. Being the lose isn't so bad, you can always hang out with DM.

BRB, Gotta call the Fire Dept.

[y0da900]

That passage was taken from an interview with Orr. Everyone knows however that Orr did not invent the idea for the autococker on his own. Glenn Palmer originated the idea and Budd copied it. Of course even after all these years though, Budd has never admitted it. It's very obvious though.

Actually, Glenn didn't come up with the idea, he was just the first to make it work properly.

No it doesn't. I never said it did-I said it was inconsistent because the air is split - some propelling the paintball and the other part recocking the hammer.

I agree with Pneumagger, thermo and fluids would have been a lot easier if I could have used your textbook.

The inconsistencies come into play when you ask, how MUCH air is used to propel the ball, and how much is used to direct the hammer-the answer? It varies with every shot.

Sure, because air just flows how much when and where it wants to, pressure gradients, flow restrictions, all of that is just irrelevant, right? Dang, and I've actually been thinking it does. Overthinking things as always I suppose.